Wedding music

[Gabriel Jackson]

I accept what Gabriel Jackson says is the reality of the situation; but despite this I still think that for them to be given a payment of almost 100 times their normal fee for a service is bordering on the unethical.

Royalty rights etc have no place in the context of a religious ceremony as far as the people who are involved in the religious life of the Abbey on a daily basis are concerned.

I would still like to hope that with a windfall of this sort the men would at least consider making a decent donation to Prince William's Royal Wedding Charity as should the other professional musicians involved.

As far as any record company is concerned they too should make a considerable donation from profits.

VCC

You don't seem to understand that a fee of that kind is not being payed for "singing a service" but for the exploitation of their singing in the various media already cited.

Incidentally composers receive no royalties for performances during a service of worship, but they do if that service is broadcast or recorded, as he two things are quite different and seperate.

Perhaps you might contact James O'Donnell, or the Senior Lay Clerk at the Abbey, to suggest that their fees are unethical and that they might give their "windfall" away.

[MrGongGong]

If this was a "buyout" then the musicians have not got such a great deal
as its likely to be syndicated and sold all over the world etc
so No repeat fees etc etc

I'm not a church musician (surprised you there hey mr Cat !) but colleagues who are , are some of the most extraordinarily skilled and talented musicians I have come across. The tradition that folk in here like to discuss at length on the endless CE threads depends on these people , some that I know well have families , children etc etc whilst (as with most musicians) they are endlessly dedicated its a bit much to begrudge them a reasonable fee for work that will make OTHERS huge sums in the future. When you employ a musician you are not (even though that's the way that pay is often calculated) buying them "by the hour" but paying for the skill and expertise that takes years and years to develop. Musicians in the UK do not earn very much at all even for hight profile gigs (like the Proms) so its a bit rude to expect them to give their fee away when many people wouldn't even get out of bed for that !

[muticus]

As an anaethsetist (is it spelt thus?) friend used to say - you were not paying him to put you to sleep, but for knowing how to wake you up again....
The labourer is worthy of his hire.

[Wolsey]

I have made some enquiries since my last post and I am told by someone who knows what happens in these situations that the lay clerks will be paid 'a lot of money' and that the £7,500 figure could well be right.

Phrases such as "a lot of money" and "£7,500 figure could well be right" speak volumes about the reliability and accuracy of your source who "knows what happens in these situations".

I accept what Gabriel Jackson says is the reality of the situation; but despite this I still think that for them to be given a payment of almost 100 times their normal fee for a service is bordering on the unethical.

You accept the "reality of the situation", then proceed again to write nonsense. I trust you understand the difference between a fee and a royalty. If you do, why continue to conflate the two?

Royalty rights etc have no place in the context of a religious ceremony as far as the people who are involved in the religious life of the Abbey on a daily basis are concerned.

What gives you the right to dictate the terms of the employment/engagement of church musicians?

I would still like to hope that with a windfall of this sort the men would at least consider making a decent donation to Prince William's Royal Wedding Charity as should the other professional musicians involved.

As far as any record company is concerned they too should make a considerable donation from profits.

You've already said this before, so "calm down, dear!" Again, what the musicians do with the fee received for this extra-ordinary event is their affair and none of your business; get over it. Moreover, your continued rant based on hearsay and upon no foundation in fact is really becoming tiresome. Please desist.

[Magnificat]

Wolsey,

Whatever the exact figures involved the principle of paying royalties to musicians for the broadcast of a religious service is absolutely and utterly wrong. The church shouldn't really allow it ( see below)

A fair and reasonable fee for services rendered to the church by professional musicians is quite acceptable.

Gabriel,

It is not the singing/music that is being exploited rather the service itself which is supposed to be to the glory of God not for the reward of the singers/organists/composers otherwise than above. It doesn't matter whether this is a one - off event like the Royal wedding or weekly CE, the principle is the same. I am not daft enough to expect that this principle would ever be put into practice where money is involved.

It is because all this can look a bit unscrupulous that I think it would be desirable for all parties involved to make donations to a charity set up to benefit from the exploitation of the Royal Wedding generally.

VCC

[mercia]

anaethsetist (is it spelt thus?)

anaesthetist (I think)

"all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order" (Eric Morecambe)

[MrGongGong]

Wolsey,

Whatever the exact figures involved the principle of paying royalties to musicians for the broadcast of a religious service is absolutely and utterly wrong. The church shouldn't really allow it ( see below)

A fair and reasonable fee for services rendered to the church by professional musicians is quite acceptable.

Gabriel,

It is not the singing/music that is being exploited rather the service itself which is supposed to be to the glory of God not for the reward of the singers/organists/composers otherwise than above. It doesn't matter whether this is a one - off event like the Royal wedding or weekly CE, the principle is the same. I am not daft enough to expect that this principle would ever be put into practice where money is involved.

It is because all this can look a bit unscrupulous that I think it would be desirable for all parties involved to make donations to a charity set up to benefit from the exploitation of the Royal Wedding generally.

VCC

not all "church musicians" believe in god (for a start !)
I know you might find this unacceptable but there you go

maybe you think that all musicians should somehow have a private income that allows them to perform for free ???
royalties are FEES for broadcasts and recordings
its what many musicians rely on to make a living

what utter cheek if you ask me !

[LPCharles]

Should such a decree apply to anybody contracted in any way to the church? The tradesman replacing the leads on the roof for example?

"Nice work my son-I'll give you 10% this week and God'll sort you out the remainder when you cross the pearly gates."

[David Underdown]

A normal service is not recorded and released on iTunes and as a CD. If the abbey authorities permit the service itself to be commercialised in such a way, should not the skill and labour of the musicians be appropriately rewarded? Even without the official release, the music - presumably grabbed from the broadcast - was on youTube within hours of the service, for which the musicians would presumably not otherwise have received any recompense.

[jamiepompey]

Wolsey,

Whatever the exact figures involved the principle of paying royalties to musicians for the broadcast of a religious service is absolutely and utterly wrong. The church shouldn't really allow it ( see below)

A fair and reasonable fee for services rendered to the church by professional musicians is quite acceptable.

Gabriel,

It is not the singing/music that is being exploited rather the service itself which is supposed to be to the glory of God not for the reward of the singers/organists/composers otherwise than above. It doesn't matter whether this is a one - off event like the Royal wedding or weekly CE, the principle is the same. I am not daft enough to expect that this principle would ever be put into practice where money is involved.

It is because all this can look a bit unscrupulous that I think it would be desirable for all parties involved to make donations to a charity set up to benefit from the exploitation of the Royal Wedding generally.

VCC

You seem insistent on this idea of donating the musicians money to charity. I assume you are unaware that £1 of every CD sale of the recording is going to the charity that Princes William and Harry have set up. Religion and musicians fees have nothing to do with each other and should not be mixed up. Your point is irrelevant.

[Rumbaba]

It could have been Jenkins or even Einaudi

That would be Billy Jenkins and 'Ain't getting married in the morning' from the 'Born Again' album?

http://www.billyjenkins.com/recordings.html#BORN%20AGAIN

[MrGongGong]

That would be Billy Jenkins and 'Ain't getting married in the morning' from the 'Born Again' album?

http://www.billyjenkins.com/recordin...l#BORN%20AGAIN

I think that will be the great Billy Jenkins powered by Berio spinning in his grave

[Magnificat]

not all "church musicians" believe in god (for a start !)
I know you might find this unacceptable but there you go

maybe you think that all musicians should somehow have a private income that allows them to perform for free ???
royalties are FEES for broadcasts and recordings
its what many musicians rely on to make a living

what utter cheek if you ask me !

Mr GG

Divine Service is not a performance or at least it shouldn't be. The men are already paid by the church for the use of their talents

The point you make, however, about musicians not being believers is a valid one.

In my opinion what should happen with a broadcast service where the music is still in copyright is that the cathedral should find out if the composer is agreeable to waiving the royalties due in view of the fact that his music is included in a religious service rather than a commercial recording. If he/she declines then the cathedral should not use it.

I wonder though if they do, in fact, all believe in a god - the god of money!!

Barry Rose used to say that the lay clerks would do anything for money.

I don't believe this actually because a lot of the lay clerks I knew at St Albans were extremely generous in the time and,in fact, money they gave to the Abbey.

VCC

[Magnificat]

A normal service is not recorded and released on iTunes and as a CD. If the abbey authorities permit the service itself to be commercialised in such a way, should not the skill and labour of the musicians be appropriately rewarded? Even without the official release, the music - presumably grabbed from the broadcast - was on youTube within hours of the service, for which the musicians would presumably not otherwise have received any recompense.

It's a valid point David but it would be preferable in my opinion if the extra payment came from the Abbey authorities to whom the lay clerks are providing their services on the day.

The Abbey ensures any monies received from The Performing Right Society and whichever similar bodues may be involved goes to The Royal Wedding charity.

VCC

[Gabriel Jackson]

Mr GG

Divine Service is not a performance or at least it shouldn't be. The men are already paid by the church for the use of their talents


In my opinion what should happen with a broadcast service where the music is still in copyright is that the cathedral should find out if the composer is agreeable to waiving the royalties due in view of the fact that his music is included in a religious service rather than a commercial recording. If he/she declines then the cathedral should not use it.


VCC

If copyright music is broadcast the copyright holder is entitled to a royalty. The church (or anyone else) is not able to change that. The payment is made by the broadcaster, not the church.

And how do you think that money the Performing Rights Society collects (from broadcasters) on behalf of its members can be given by Westminster Abbey to the charity of your choice?!